PDA

View Full Version : same sex marriage in NY



cueball1950
07-01-2011, 05:10 PM
Hi everybody, been away for awhile only getting on when i can. I just went back 15 pages and did not see a post on this subjecy. Or did i just miss it by not going back far enough?......mike

Soflasnapper
07-01-2011, 07:20 PM
Mike, it hasn't been covered to my notice, and I check in regularly.

Glad to 'hear your voice,' so to speak!

Phil

LWW
07-02-2011, 02:14 AM
This is possibly the biggest non issue, IMHO, in modern US political history.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 02:35 AM
It seems like a landmark to me.

Sure, it's only the 5th or 6th state to do this. But it's so large, it's about doubled the reach of citizens under this change that was unthinkable not so long ago, the province of rogue cities and mayors but no states.

No state, not California or NY, has been able to pass anti-discrimination in employment or housing for gays. Again, the province of only a few cities, though this time lawfully entitled to make that change.

The dam has been broken wide open with this result, as even Republicans joined to vote aye. This result heralds a relatively new consensus, that who cares anyway? If that's the point of the prior reply, I agree.

But <s>everybody</s> big majorities used to object. Many religious folks object more than ever, and many are highly offended by this result. It is a watershed moment that changes society.

Andrew Cuomo will meet with the Bilderbergers and be nominated for president in 2016.

eg8r
07-02-2011, 03:32 PM
I haven't seen it posted here yet but I think it is a giant mistake.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 05:09 PM
I think it is a giant mistake

How so? Do you think it will destroy traditional marriage or something? Lead to people marrying animals, as man-on-dog Santorum has suggested?

And, despite whether it's a mistake or not, do you think the people through their representatives have the right to make this the law in NY? (Some things could be a bad idea, but still be legitimate as a law to be passed.)

It will ripen the legal challenge to DOMA, that's for sure.

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:43 PM
If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage?

eg8r
07-02-2011, 06:44 PM
I have no other opinion other than to say that in my mind it is a mistake. It goes against my religion so I am certainly against it.

eg8r

hondo
07-02-2011, 11:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage? </div></div>

Sure, why not?

Sid_Vicious
07-02-2011, 11:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage? </div></div>

Sure, why not? </div></div>

Don't you wish that all of your answers to questions in this world were that easy to field Hondo ;-) Sure, why not? LMAO sid

hondo
07-02-2011, 11:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage? </div></div>

Sure, why not? </div></div>

Don't you wish that all of your answers to questions in this world were that easy to field Hondo ;-) Sure, why not? LMAO sid </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

llotter
07-03-2011, 02:29 AM
The evil Left is once again successful in undermining our culture and the consequences are always the same, lose of freedom and all of the good that freedom fosters. Once again the irrational, disgusting mob wins.

LWW
07-03-2011, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage? </div></div>

Sure, why not? </div></div>

Nobody asked you.

LWW
07-03-2011, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The evil Left is once again successful in undermining our culture and the consequences are always the same, lose of freedom and all of the good that freedom fosters. Once again the irrational, disgusting mob wins. </div></div>

In the long run ... I think this one explodes in their collectivist faces like an Elmer Fudd cigar.

By allowing gay marriage ... you introduce gay divorce, which will be the end of gay marriage as a movement.

Qtec
07-03-2011, 04:20 AM
We all know that the republicans hold the sanctity of marriage in high regard, just ask newt.

Q

hondo
07-03-2011, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage? </div></div>

Sure, why not? </div></div>

Nobody asked you. </div></div>

I'll remember that next time you stick your ugly nose in my business.

LWW
07-03-2011, 07:14 AM
Poor Alinskyism ... D-, at best.

LWW
07-03-2011, 07:15 AM
You stick yours in everyone's ... so deal with the consequences as best you can.

hondo
07-03-2011, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The evil Left is once again successful in undermining our culture and the consequences are always the same, lose of freedom and all of the good that freedom fosters. Once again the irrational, disgusting mob wins. </div></div>

In the long run ... I think this one explodes in their collectivist faces like an Elmer Fudd cigar.

By allowing gay marriage ... you introduce gay divorce, which will be the end of gay marriage as a movement. </div></div>

Is there no hope for you and... oh, never mind.
He might take me seriously.
I know he's one of invisible lurkers you seem to hate so much. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

llotter
07-03-2011, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The evil Left is once again successful in undermining our culture and the consequences are always the same, lose of freedom and all of the good that freedom fosters. Once again the irrational, disgusting mob wins. </div></div>

In the long run ... I think this one explodes in their collectivist faces like an Elmer Fudd cigar.

By allowing gay marriage ... you introduce gay divorce, which will be the end of gay marriage as a movement. </div></div>

Haven't you noticed that the problems created by the last mob solution and NEVER identified as being caused by those solution. The mob is not rational.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 06:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you believe people in NY have the right to make this law, as I do, can I assume that you believe people in other states have the right to make a law prohibiting same sex marriage? </div></div>

People and states have the power and right to make any laws they wish. However, if such laws deny equal protection under the law, are violative of the 14th amendment or other Constitutional protections, the courts have the power and the right to strike them down.

Likely DOMA is unConstitutional on purely Constitutional grounds, and I guess we will have a ruling on that one way or another a little down the road.

LWW
07-04-2011, 03:19 AM
Legal nonsense.

Marriage has always been defined separately by the individual states ... that's why the legal age and how close a relative can marry and what blood tests/legal fees are levied.

Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage.

Qtec
07-04-2011, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

Sure it is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>promote the general welfare,</span> </div></div>

Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.

Q

LWW
07-04-2011, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

Sure it is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>promote the general welfare,</span> </div></div>

Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.

Q </div></div>

Nobody doubted you were a mind controlled statebot.

hondo
07-04-2011, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

Sure it is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>promote the general welfare,</span> </div></div>

Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.

Q </div></div>

Nobody doubted you were a mind controlled statebot. </div></div>


"Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.'


Did that hit too close to home?

Stretch
07-04-2011, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

Sure it is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>promote the general welfare,</span> </div></div>

Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.

Q </div></div>

Nobody doubted you were a mind controlled statebot. </div></div>


"Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.'


Did that hit too close to home?
</div></div>

lol, struck a nerve there. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

LWW
07-04-2011, 08:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

Sure it is.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>promote the general welfare,</span> </div></div>

Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.

Q </div></div>

Nobody doubted you were a mind controlled statebot. </div></div>


"Of course the Govt can ban brother marrying sister. Its bad for America.'


Did that hit too close to home?
</div></div>

Actually ... they have no constitutional authority to do that at all, although the states do, have, and were IMHO correct in doing so.

But ... I, again, have an unfair advantage in that I have actually read the COTUS and the Federalist Papers and the memoirs of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay.

OTOH ... you have the finest spoon fed data from a community organizer who padded their resume' by claiming to be a professor of constitutional law.

LWW
07-04-2011, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did that hit too close to home?</div></div>

Since you, as usual, decided to dive headfirst into the gutter of sophomoric slander ... perhaps we might discuss West Virginny Code of the Hills where a minor female can get married without parental consent ... where it's legal to beat your wife, so long as it's done on Sunday on the steps of the Cabell County court house ... where roadkill may be taken home for supper ... where a man may legally have sex with a dog, opossum, sheep, or raccoon so long as the animal weighs 40 lbs or less ... and a law has to be passed to stop locals from whistling underwater for their own safety.

OH DEAR! (http://west-virginia.usmarriagelaws.com/)

SHE HAD DUNN BIN WORNED TWICED! (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/west-virginia)

Lends a whole new meaning to the phrase "GETTING SOMETHING STRANGE!" (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/west-virginia)

MM ... MMM ... MMMM ... POSSUM WID SKWIRRL GRAYVEE! (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/west-virginia)

WHEEEBLUB-BLUB-BLUB-EET WHEWBLUB-BLUB-BLUB ... THET THAR'S WON FEIN LOOKIN NANNY GOTE (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/west-virginia)

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 03:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Legal nonsense.

Marriage has always been defined separately by the individual states ... that's why the legal age and how close a relative can marry and what blood tests/legal fees are levied.

Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

You must know better than this.

The Constitution requires all the states to honor other states' legal contracts and marriages. DOMA says states can ignore that Constitutional statement, for the case of marriage contracts. That law would appear to violate the Constitution, and we will soon see the question before the SCOTUS.

hondo
07-04-2011, 08:01 PM
Aren't you from kentucky originally, dearless leader?

http://www.wkyt.com/blogs/mcnayonmoney/H..._124464284.html (http://www.wkyt.com/blogs/mcnayonmoney/Hillbilly_Stereotypes_Spark_Controversy_in_Kentuck y_Election______124464284.html)


Oh, well, I've seen it with West Virgians too.
Once they move to Ohio looking for work, they become snobbish idiots.

LWW
07-05-2011, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Legal nonsense.

Marriage has always been defined separately by the individual states ... that's why the legal age and how close a relative can marry and what blood tests/legal fees are levied.

Nowhere in the COTUS is the federal gubmint empowered to define marriage. </div></div>

You must know better than this.

The Constitution requires all the states to honor other states' legal contracts and marriages. DOMA says states can ignore that Constitutional statement, for the case of marriage contracts. That law would appear to violate the Constitution, and we will soon see the question before the SCOTUS. </div></div>

1 - Show me where it says what you claim.

2 - It is irrelevant even if it did because even that would still not empower the federal gubmint to define marriage.

LWW
07-05-2011, 04:53 AM
Yes I am from the commonwealth ... and prefer it to Ohio in nearly every way.

What was your point?

What's that?

You didn't actually have one?

Imagine that.

hondo
07-05-2011, 08:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I am from the commonwealth ... and prefer it to Ohio in nearly every way.

What was your point?

What's that?

You didn't actually have one?

Imagine that. </div></div>

I'll go real slow, honey.
The same stereotypes that you rub in West Virginia's face apply to your home state also, hypocrite.
Are you that dense?

LWW
07-06-2011, 01:54 AM
What stereotype is that?

I merely stated the laws of West Virginia.

Beyond that ... once again we have aitch picking a web fight and then claiming to be the martyr.

hondo
07-06-2011, 05:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I merely stated the laws of West Virginia.

</div></div>

There are ridiculous, antiquated laws in most states.
What was your point then?
You fool no one.
Once again , dearless leader acts like a little bitch, then flutters his eyes and demurely proclaims his innocence.
Have you ever considered growing a pair? Try testoterone shots.

LWW
07-06-2011, 05:50 AM
My point was to show that you are:

A - A hypocrite.

B - A troll.

C - A perpetual martyr.

Anything else I can help you with?

hondo
07-06-2011, 07:40 AM
OUCH! Somebody's acting like a sniveling little biatch.
Why don't you put on your big boy britches and stop acting like some old woman fighting over a hat that's on sale?

I'm not a hypocrite. You are, sweetie.
I'm not a troll. You are, darlin.
I'm not a martyr. I simply call you on your BS.

I don't see why we can't discuss the issues and not have to endure your cattiness?

LWW
07-06-2011, 09:43 AM
That was simply precious.

hondo
07-06-2011, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was simply precious. </div></div>

Thanks, babycakes. You're simply precious also. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

LWW
07-06-2011, 10:10 AM
Please cease and desist in your homosexual advances towards me.

I have asked you to so several times.

You seem to be wanting to advance from serial troll to sexual predator.

Doesn't your state supplied health care cover mental health services?

hondo
07-06-2011, 07:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please cease and desist in your homosexual advances towards me.

</div></div>

You wish!

What a card!

LWW
07-07-2011, 02:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please cease and desist in your homosexual advances towards me.

</div></div>

You wish!</div></div>

Another Freudian slip?

And, actually, yes I do wish you would. Sadly ... you have, yet again. shown your true cyber-stalking self.

Toss that data point onto your legal staff preparing your lawsuit.

hondo
07-07-2011, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please cease and desist in your homosexual advances towards me.

</div></div>

You wish!</div></div>

Another Freudian slip?

And, actually, yes I do wish you would. Sadly ... you have, yet again. shown your true cyber-stalking self.

Toss that data point onto your legal staff preparing your lawsuit. </div></div>

Quit responding to me and I'll quit responding to you.
It's easy.
One final response from you without being snarky simply saying like a gentleman that you no longer wish to communicate with me.
Otherwise, quit whining.